David Cameron says that the leaders' debates are a risk and he would be inhuman not to be nervous about them

> WATCH highlights of the interview here.

Sky News has just broadcast an interview with David Cameron conducted yesterday by Adam Boulton.

Here are the main points  the Tory leader made (not verbatim):

Election date: It looks clear it is a May 6th election and I'm sure Brown will go to the Palace on Tuesday or Wednesday. The Tory campaign is ready to get out there and roll. This parliament has been a "good advert for fixed term parliaments" and I am tempted by the idea, though not yet persuaded.

The leaders' debates: I've always been in favour of them. They are a good thing, a good way of communicating with millions. Is it a risk? Yes. Is it a risk for me? Absolutely, yes. Am I nervous? You bet. You'd have to be unhuman not to be nervous. But it will be an opportunity to say what you would do differently and how the country would be a better place.

Expectation of the result: I've never said we will win, I've said we can win. I just believe we can do so much better than the current government and we now have a great opportunity, and I'm going to be working every hour of every day between now and polling day towards it. We're going to run a very positive campaign, that's why we started the year with positive reasons to vote Conservative, such as cutting the deficit but protecting the NHS and identifying people who've never voted Conservative before.

The style of a Cameron government: A Tory government would need to learn the lessons of where Blair went wrong, by putting aside the "tools of opposition" and rolling up sleeves to get on with the business of government. (He repeated some of the points he made in his Telegraph article yesterday about the values and character he would have, in addition to the policies - which matter most).

Would he work with Nick Clegg in a hung parliament? I'm not going to discuss that. I'm fighting for an overall majority. A hung parliament would be damaging for the country and the economy. We need decisive government and that's what we want to deliver.

This week's debate over National Insurance:  It has been a "very significant moment", showing that the Conservatives have a positive alternative to stop the tax rises which are most threatening to the recovery. There has to be a balance between spending reduction and borrowing reduction and Labour have got it wrong. The Tories are able to be progressive Conservatives and stop what is a tax rise that will hit the economy, jobs and people earning less than £20,000.

Weren't all the businessmen backing the Tory policy on National Insurance all Tories anyway? No. They talked about the "risk to the recovery" of the NI increase and include a number who have advised Gordon Brown. "The idea that they are a bunch of stooges is insulting". Richard Caring, for example, still has an outstanding loan to Labour. I welcome good people from business wanting to make a contribution to public life and it is not a bad idea to bring people in from business into politics. (He refused to rule out giving peerages to any of the signatories to the letters).

Labour's failure to tackle inefficiency: Labour have identified £11 billion of efficiency savings but are doing nothing about them in 2010. Which business or family would identify waste but no go ahead and eliminate it as soon as possible? The Government should behave in the same way as every business and family in terms of savings; there would be some job losses through abolishing the ID cards scheme and certain government IT programmes.

The NHS: It remains my "number one priority", and I'm going to put it "right on the ballot paper" and campaign on it all the way to polling day.  Any NHS savings from reducing waste, inefficiency or NICs will be available to spend on things that make a difference. (He explained again the new policy announced this weekend to use the money saved from NICs for a Cancer Drugs Fund to help thousands of cancer sufferers get the drugs they need.  He also expressed concern about the growing gap between the UK and other countries on cancer survival rates).

The Gene Hunt poster: I'm a fan of Ashes to Ashes and thought it was "extraordinary" that Labour depicted me as Gene Hunt. It was a "very strange poster". People will be thinking it would be great if police officers were out nicking villains and arresting people rather than sitting in offices filling in forms.

God and religion: I expect to go to church on Easter morning. I always said I have faith but wouldn't say I have a direct line [to God]. I'm a fairly typical member of the Church of England but have all sorts of doubts and uncertainties and questions but have found it helpful in my private life. I'm a great fan of faith-based organisations in this country - they bring a huge amount in terms of helping the homeless, helping people find jobs, and looking after the vulnerable in our communities. They have a big role to play. The Papal visit will be a big moment for Britain and I would do all I can to make sure it;s a success.

Jonathan Isaby

Cameron must use the debates to hammer Labour on immigration

On the day that Gordon Brown raised the immigration issue (and got reprimanded by the Statistics Chief) I've written for The Guardian about David Cameron deploying the immigration issue during the debates:

"Cameron's great opportunity to address the immigration question – and to put a lid on the BNP – will come in the election debates. The issue that opinion polls say is voters' second most important issue is bound to play a prominent part in the three televised encounters between Brown, Cameron and Clegg. The Conservative leader will have an opportunity to repeat his promise to cut net immigration from today's levels of about 200,000 every year to the tens of thousands. A Tory government will do this in a variety of ways but a cap on immigration from outside the EU and an overhaul of the heavily abused student visa system will do the heavy lifting. I hope Cameron doesn't hold back in attacking Labour's record on immigration. It is the poorest communities who have been hurt most by the failure to police Britain's borders."

The full piece is in The Guardian.

Tim Montgomerie

Osborne gets thumbs up from Tory commentators

I gave my verdict last night on the debate between the would be Chancellors. Here are some other verdicts...

Fraser Nelson, The Spectator: "Osborne didn't set the heather alight, but nor did he intend to. His mission was to walk through this minefield without blowing himself up. He had in mind not the journalists, nor even the studio audience, but the audience back home, to whom he pitched his closing remarks directly. “It’s your choice, you will decide” he said – breaking through the ‘fourth wall’ a la Moonlighting. Anecdotally, I hear that a lot of normal voters are saying they were pleasantly surprised that Osborne is not the demonic oik he’s been portrayed as."

Iain Martin, Wall Street Journal: "Osborne had by far the hardest job going into the Chancellor’s debate. He’s under pressure and the expectation was that Cable and Darling would gang up and do him in. They had a couple of early goes, but he stood his ground and got over his early nerves. It is not an exaggeration to say that this is a show that, if it had gone badly wrong for Osborne, could have done serious damage to the Tories election chances. It didn’t go wrong and he emerged stronger."

Benedict Brogan, The Telegraph: "[Osborne's] closing line about it being our choice whether we want to change the country – no bombast or cod appeal – was refreshing. Mr Osborne also scored one of the clear hits of the night by forcing what sounded suspiciously like a surrender from Alistair Darling on the “death tax” to pay for long term care."

Nick Watt, The Guardian: "Cable, who has been widely praised for predicting the recession, was seen as the winner after a bravura performance. In his closing remarks he said: "The Labour government led us into this mess … The Tories presided over two big recessions in office, they wasted most of the North Sea oil revenue, they sold off the family silver on the cheap." To applause, he added: "Now they want to have another turn to get their noses in the trough and reward their rich backers. The Liberal Democrats are different. We got this crisis basically right. We are not beholden to either the super rich or militant unions.""

Martin Kettle, The Guardian: "Osborne, by contrast, started from a low base especially amoing non-Tories. He is seen by focus groups and polls as a little callow, a bit posh and not terribly reliable. So he stood to gain from the debate. Viewers who stayed the course will perhaps have been impressed that he kept going well under pressure."

Sean O'Grady, The Independent: "As the underdog, George Osborne went in to the studio with the least to lose, and he lost it. It must have seemed a good idea at the time, the cut in national insurance paid for by cuts and efficiency savings in the public sector, but the Tory message has been badly muddied by this."

Allister Heath, City AM: "Predictably, the debate’s low point was the one-sided and undifferentiated attack on the financial services industry by all three candidates, including the false claim that Barclays was bailed out by the taxpayer and other factually incorrect statements. All three parties are continuing to propagate envy and hatred towards all those who work in finance with an ultra-simplistic analysis of the causes of the crisis; they also fail to differentiate between those who acted prudently – and those who didn’t, who do deserve to be vilified."

Tim Montgomerie

Labour and the LibDems did not win a debate they expected to win

Instant judgments on tonight's debate:

No big winner.

Osborne was up against Labour's best performer other than Mandelson and against the LibDems' most popular figure, Cable, but neither even came close to flooring him. Osborne came through unscathed and looked like a Chancellor.

Indeed, better than unscathed, he actually appeared to force a U-turn from Darling on the £20,000 death tax. The only 'new news' of the debate.

My own view of Cable took a hit tonight. He was consistently populist, playing to the gallery particularly with his attack on 50p taxpayers as "pin-striped Scargills." That was student politics and not worthy of a prospective Chancellor.

And what a gallery it was. There seemed noisy support for Cable. I'd be interested in how Channel 4 selected its audience and whether the LibDems flooded the application process.

Osborne's one minute introduction wasn't great but over the hour he clearly delivered the key messages (1) Labour's banking regulation had failed; (2) deliberately wasteful spending cannot be a solution to the recession; and (3) for all Labour's attempts to obfuscate by attacking the Tories, it is Labour that has been in charge for thirteen years, they've made the mess and it is up to voters to decide if it's really sensible to believe they're the people to clean it up.

In conclusion: Osborne 7 out of 10, Darling 6 out of 10, Cable 5 out of 10. Labour and the LibDems did not win a debate they expected to win.

Tim Montgomerie

Live blog of Cable v Darling v Osborne

Highlights, not verbatim, focusing on George Osborne's contributions. On Channel 4, 8pm.

8.53pm: Osborne has the last word, he says Darling has been in charge for thirteen years and has changed one of the strongest economies in Europe to the weakest.

8.53pm: Cable gets applause when he says LibDems are not beholden to unions or the super rich.

8.51pm: Osborne says we borrow from the Chinese to buy goods from them.

8.48pm: Osborne is doing well at looking directly at questioners.

8.46pm: Osborne says we need to protect the vanilla retail banks, not the ones doing risky trading. Applause.

8.44pm: Second Osborne hit - attacking Labour's failed regulatory system.

8.40pm: Cable gets applause for attacking cartel banks. Darling makes more sense when he points out that 'small' banks like Northern Rock failed as well as mega-sized banks (size doesn't matter!). Osborne says it is wrong for banks supported by taxpayers to pay large bonuses; it should be going to small businesses.

8.36pm: Osborne agrees with Cable and Darling that inequality is a problem.

8.34pm: Vince Cable just described people unhappy with 50p tax as "pin-striped Scargills".

8.33pm: Osborne says avoiding the NI tax rise rather than the 50p tax rise is his priority. He promises to protect the many first, not the few.

8.32pm: Osborne says he has no plans to raise VAT. The bulk of deficit reduction will come from spending reduction.

8.28pm: Osborne says Tories will introduce a bank tax in order to make fair contribution to society.

8.27pm: Darling appears to rule out death tax. First 'new news' of evening.

8.24pm: Osborne's first hit of the night - says Labour won't rule out a £20,000 death tax.

8.17pm: Osborne says he'll protect the NHS budget. Cable says he won't give that commitment because it will mean bigger cuts in other budgets. Cable says Osborne will have to take the cleaver to police, housing, defence and so on because of ring-fencing the NHS.

8.15pm: All three say cuts will have to be deeper than anything undertaken by Margaret Thatcher.

8.12pm: Cable gets laugh for saying Labour's efficiency savings are completely bogus. Lots of interaction between the three. This won't be permitted in the leaders' debates (apparently there is a chunk of time reserved for 'free debate').

8.10pm: It's common sense says Osborne that we need to start repaying debt quickly. It's the same for a person as it is for government.

8.08pm: Cable actually looks nervous.

8.06pm: Good points from Osborne saying that he wants to reward workers and savers. A Chancellor must always remember that he is dealing with the people's money.

8.02pm: Opening statements were forgettable.

Tim Montgomerie

What do we want voters to say at the end of the election debates?

Here's my suggestion: David Cameron looked like a Prime Minister tonight.

I write that after reviewing various reports of yesterday's debate between Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd and opposition leader Tony Abbott. Immediate reaction polls suggest 79% of voters gave the debate to Rudd. Rudd was sobre, focused on the substance. Abbott was more negative, more personal, less policy-orientated. Sky News has a video report below which shows very clearly how voters are turned off by partisanship. ABC News' Barrie Cassidy summed it up: "Kevin Rudd looked like a prime minister and Tony Abbott behaved like an opposition leader."

The Tories also need a strategy for managing expectations. LibDemVoice recently reviewed the polls which expect Cameron to easily win the debates. Those expectations need to be managed downwards.

Tim Montgomerie

Cameron welcomes the agreement on election debates

This is the full statement from David Cameron welcoming election debates:

"I am absolutely delighted that these debates are going to happen. I first called for them in May 2007 and since then, whether we’ve been up in the polls or down in the polls, I’ve kept the pressure up. So now they’re finally going to happen I’m proud of the part we’ve played in making this particular part of British political history.

I hope these debates will play a part in helping to restore trust in politics. We will have the chance to talk to millions of people in our country who are fed up with politics, fed up with politicians, think we’re all the same, think nothing changes. We’ve a chance to convince them it could be different; we can go in a different direction if we get rid of this failed Labour government and get a better one.

I also hope the debates will get people engaged again in politics. I think they could get people more excited about this election, more likely to take part. And there’s a great opportunity to be able to talk to millions of people about the change we want to bring in this country. We need to get Britain working, we need to raise standards in schools, we have to act on debt and make Britain more family friendly, we have to encourage responsibility, back people doing the right thing, and we have to change our politics.

I think people have got a right to look at the people putting themselves forward as our next Prime Minister and to see the choice, then they can make up their own minds. Members of my Shadow Cabinet will also be challenging members of the Cabinet to debates.

There is a big choice facing Britain at this election: five more years of Gordon Brown or change with the Conservatives. That’s why I really relish the challenge the debates will bring."

Ipsos MORI have published the following findings re the debates:

• 60% say the debates will be important in helping them decide who to vote for (with 29% saying they will be very important).
• David Cameron is the overwhelming favourite among the public to perform best in the debates: 53% say they think Mr Cameron will gain most public support as a result of the debates, compared to 20% for Gordon Brown and 12% for Nick Clegg. 

Matt Flanders of Ipsos MORI comments: "So while this may seem like good news for Mr Cameron – the debates will be important, and he’s widely expected to do best – it could also be seen as a risk; expectations of his success are so high that he has little to gain and potentially much to lose if the other leaders perform well."

Tim Montgomerie

"Election winners should be endurance champions, not flash-in-the-pan performers."

At the end of last year it was announced that election debates had been agreed in principle. I immediately blogged that CCHQ had played the role of Santa and given Brown and, particularly, Clegg an early gift. Some readers attacked me for being too partisan. Debates would be good for democracy, they said. In the latest issue of Total Politics I explain why I'm opposed to election debates in principle. You can read my full argument here (and Adam Boulton's case for debates). But, on the day that it appears exact terms have been agreed for the debates to happen, my main arguments are...

1. "When, just before Christmas, it was announced that Britain would get election debates, we were treated to a brief history of American presidential debates. What we got in that selection was all that is wrong with these gladiatorial-style contests. There was no great clash of ideas. We got funny soundbites (such as from Ronald Reagan against Walter Mondale) and great putdowns (Lloyd Bentsen against Dan Quayle). We were also reminded of how Nixon beat Kennedy among radio listeners but Kennedy beat Nixon on TV because of the latter's five o'clock shadow. That's what election debates are primarily about. They're about soundbites and how the politicians look."
2. "Head-to-head debates are more appropriate in the American system than our own. In America, the presidential candidates are chosen in the year before the November election. They are only confirmed as their parties' candidates three months before Americans vote. The debates give Americans the opportunity to get to know candidates who, if elected, will have enormous powers over their government. In Britain we don't vote for a president. We vote for a local MP and for a political party. Those MPs choose a leader. The leader they have at the time of the general election may not be the leader they keep in office."
3. "Debates mark another attempt to centralise our political system. It will further encourage political parties to choose a certain kind of leader who can dominate a gladiatorial politics rather than one who, perhaps, is best skilled at building a broadly-based party. Winning leadership debates will give a prime minister a greater self-importance. They will come to believe that they are the reason for their party's success. I want a politics where power is taken away from the leaders and given to the MPs and to the people."
4. "I like the idea that elections are decided gradually over time. People see what happens to their incomes, to the safety of their streets and to the condition of the very poorest. They watch national politicians perform at PMQs, via a hundred TV clips and through the pages of local newspapers. For me a vote reflects the gradual accumulation of wisdom. Debates aren't part of that tradition. I always want my football team to win the Premiership rather than the FA Cup. Leagues are a test of quality week in, week out. The cup is about whether you played well on one particular day. Election winners should be endurance champions, not flash-in-the-pan performers."

Tim Montgomerie

2.15pm Just noticed this from Michael Crick: "I can report that the "Leaders' Debates" at the forthcoming election have now been cancelled. Instead, over the past 2-3 weeks they've been quietly replaced with "Prime Ministerial Debates". It's a cunning manoeuvre, agreed by the three main broadcasters (the BBC, ITV and Sky) and the three main parties, to exclude the SNP and Plaid Cymru leaders from the debates." With the SNP question seemingly resolved the debates are almost certain to go ahead.

Closing the deal 2/10: Prepare, prepare and prepare for the debates

The election debates (if they overcome last minute spanners-in-the-works) will be a crucial and potentially game-changing feature of the campaign. For Cameron they represent a big opportunity to win the voters' trust. For Clegg and Brown they are a lifeline and a chance to get back in the game. The first debate, hosted by ITN, is likely to pull the biggest audience. It will be the debate that counts most.

• Expectations of Cameron are understandably high but they are too high. There needs to be a massive exercise in managing down expectations. If Cameron goes into these debates with a Manchester United-sized reputation and Brown begins with a Leeds-sized reputation there'll be a shrug of the shoulders if Cameron wins and big headlines if Brown wins with a memorable strike on goal.
• Experience from other countries suggests that the third party candidates - not normally receiving much attention - tend to be the biggest gainers from these debates. Cameron needs to use the debates to make it very clear that a vote for the LibDems is Brown's best hope of clinging to power. This is the most important message that Cameron needs to get out to LibDem/Con waverers. That message will be easier to deliver if Clegg gangs up with Brown in attacking Tory policy on marriage and green issues.
• The Conservative leader needs to look serious and likeable. Jokes at PMQs that impress MPs won't work with a TV audience.  He doesn't need to take risks (certainly not in debate one).  Brown and Clegg as the opinion poll stragglers need to be the gamblers.
• Debate prep should already be underway. The election campaign will be busy enough. Take advice from seasoned debate professionals in America, Australia and particularly Canada (where the third parties really count).

Tim Montgomerie

David Cameron's "Cameron Direct" meetings will make him all the more prepared for the TV debates

On Monday, just a few hours before the first snow fell across the capital, I braved the cold to go to a church in Hammersmith in order to observe a Cameron Direct meeting - my first, David Cameron's 57th.

More than 230 residents from across the redrawn marginal constituency - which will be contested for the Conservatives by Shaun Bailey - turned up to spend an hour firing questions on anything and everything at the Tory leader.

Readers may be unfamiliar with the format, since the meetings, which have now attended by well in excess of 10,000 people from all corners of the United Kingdom (as illustrated by the map) since they began in June 2008, are explicitly closed to party members. It's an opportunity for ordinary voters - sympathetic, apathetic, floating and indeed downright hostile - to probe the man who will be seeking their help in getting him the keys to Number Ten at the impending general election.

It's a very basic set-up: Mr Cameron takes to a modest 6-inch high podium (without a lectern), makes a few introductory remarks and then immediately gives the floor to the voters wanting to question him - which inevitably include some who are actively hostile to the party, as was the case in Hammersmith on Monday.

I felt that he came across extremely well in the environment: honest, human and - importantly - not just seeking to tell the questioners what they wanted to hear. And at those points when he was not willing to play to the audience, it should at least have garnered him additional respect from the genuine floating voters in attendance for being prepared to stick to his guns.

Continue reading "David Cameron's "Cameron Direct" meetings will make him all the more prepared for the TV debates" »